Scope Flashcards
is there a duty owed?
What are the three ways to establish that the D owes the P a duty with respect to physical harms?
Special Relationship
Enhancement of Risk
Voluntary Assumption of Duty
What is a fiduciary special relationship? Include at least 3 examples
Relationships based on dependency and trust, but duty limited to dangers within the relationship where the Defendant is in a superior position of power over plaintiff’s welfare.
Ex:
Common-Carrier and Passenger
Innkeeper-Guest
School-Students
Landlord-Tenant
What is the definition for Enhancement of Risk? (HINT 7)
Duty of reasonable care is owed when the conduct creates a risk of physical harm a
Duty can be modified or eliminated by the court based on the circumstances
Applying the doctrine of “knows or has reason to know” that their conduct caused harm, there is a duty of reasonable care owed to prevent further harm.
How do you define a duty for Negligent enhancement of risk?
Definition: Negligent conduct increases or creates the risk of harm
Example: Driving 100 mph in a group of 60 mph drivers and crashes where they now owe victim a duty or general public at large
How do you define a duty for Non-Negligent enhancement of injury?
Conduct that is innocent but causes injury that in turn creates additional risk.
The injury leaves the victim “helpless and in danger of further harm.”
The standard of care is if the D “knows or has reason to know” that his or her conduct, whether tortious or innocent, caused the harm that left the victim in this situation
the D has a “duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent such further harm.”
Ex. Maldonado v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
The defendant railroad was held liable for failing to render aid to the plaintiff. Even though the injuries were not due to the defendant’s negligence.
How do you define a duty for Non-Negligent enhancement of risk/creation of risk?
Definitoin: Injury has not occurred, but the conduct creates a continuing risk of harm that is characteristic of said conduct and causes harm at a later time.
Duty: the actor has a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent or minimize the harm.
Arises: can arise regardless of whether an individual is rendered helpless but if the actor knows or has reason to know whether the conduct has left them at risk and whether they can better mitigate the risk to the vicitm is considered.
When is a duty owed under Voluntary Assumption?
Section 44: A duty of reasonable care is owed while an actor is in the act of taking care of another while the other is Imperiled,
Helpless or unable to protect themselves. If the aid is discontinued then the actor must use reasonable care to refrain from putting the other in a worse position than before (accounts for changing circumstances)
Section 324: An actor, being under no duty to do so, takes charge of another who is helpless is liable to the other for any bodily harm caused by Failure to exercise reasonable care to secure safety of dependent person or Left victim in a worse position than prior to assumption of duty.
(outcome based rather than reasonableness, circumstances ignored)
Why might the two version of voluntary assumption adopt different approaches? When would the difference matter for an action for injuries sustained as a result of a rescue effort?
They are meant to treat expectations of actors differently
324, deters unqualified people from assuming a duty by relying on the outcome of their care.
44, protects reasonable efforts regardless of the volutneers qualifications
This difference determines the standard used to hold the volunteer liable.
Why is there no general duty of rescue, not even a duty of easy rescue at common law?
There is no duty of easy rescue becuase there is no line between easy rescue and self-sacrifice. This would cause unduly harm to people and would trump efficiency. Laslty the act must be volitional + effecient there is no easy duty with both of these conditions met.
What is the tort of Negligent Misrepresentation ?
Duty owed to a third party when the information provided by the defendant omits key information, tells half-truths, or generally misrepresents someone that detrimentally physically harms the plaintiff as a result of them reasonably relying on that information.
what are the elements of negligent misrepresentation?
Section 311:
Negligently giving false information to another is subject to liability due to reliance on information if harms results
To the other party (like the other school district); or
To such third parties that the actor should reasonably expect to be put in peril
Such negligence may consist of failure to exercise reasonable care
In ascertaining the accuracy of the information
In the manner in which it is communicated
What are the Rowland Factors and why are they used?
They are used to identify the scope of duty when there is no special relationship.All factors analyzed to establish whether a duty should be owed.
Factors: CAMPFBD
Closeness btw D’s conduct and injury
Alternative courses of conduct
Moral blame attached to conduct
Policy of preventing future harm
Burden to D & effect on the comm. of imposing duty
Forseeability of harm to P
Degree of certainty that the P suffered injury
How does Randi W. court distinguish misrepresentation and non-disclosure?
Misrepresentations are half-truths, vital omissions and misleading character statements that could lead to liability
Non Disclosure is when the act of not reporting or not responding will no lead to liability becuase they are not relaying misleading information
How does the court find reliance?
When the information given whether accurate or innaccurate is the foundation for the choices that lead to the physical harm or injury.
Why is the decision limited to cases in which third parties suffer physical harm?
It it is rooted in the forseeability of harm to the plaintiff, emotional damages are too difficult to forsee therefore it is bound to physical harm.
Why has the Randi W. decision failed to end the problem of “passing the trash” in California?
It has failed to end the problem becuase of the use of “no comment” letters. Rather than schools disclosing accusations and misconduct they would rather avoid the liability all together and state “no comment”
When does a psychotherapist owe a duty to a third party based on the special relationship with a patient? (HINT 315, 41)
Section 315: Duty to a third party may arise when there is a special relationship between the defendant and either the party whose conduct needs to be controlled (patient) or the party who is foreseeably endangered as a result (third-party).
Does not require prior coduct between the Defendant and the victim.
Focuses on whether a special relationship exists that imposes a futy on the defendant
If anything there is prior knowledge, a psychiatrist who knows their patient has violent tendencies might have a duty to warn potential victims
Section 41: Actor in a special relationship owes a duty of reasonable care to a third party with regard to risks posed by the other party that arise within the scope of the relationship.
Parents and dependent children, custodians, employer-employee, mental health professionals and patients (Tarasoff).
What is the basis for finding that UCLA owed Rosen a duty of reasonable care?
The basis was that she was in a special relationship with UCLA as an enrolled student and that UCLA had assumed a duty to her by undertaking to provide campus security. The basis was not reliant on a third-party obligation to control Thompson but a special relationship obligant to protect Rosen.
When can a statute give rise to a private right of action?
Express PRoA: a statute will make explicit that they have the ability for a private right of action if someone does not adhere to the statute
Implied PRoA: when the statute is silent and the plaintiff must argue that there is an implied right of action that promotes teh ability for a private right of action rather than directly stating it.
What is the three part test set forth in Uhr?
Is the plaintiff a member of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted?
Would the private right of action promote the legislative purpose?
Would the private right of action be consistent with the legislative scheme?
It is meant to determine whether there is an implied private right of action based on a statute
All of these factors must be met to prove an implicit private right of action
How does private right of action differ from common law negligence?
The common law action would arise under judge-made law rather than a statute. There are three ways to establish common law negligence:
special relationship
enhancement of risk
voluntary assumption of a duty
How does private right of action differ from negligence per se?
The private right of action looks at whether a duty was owed and to enforce that duty by making them comply to the terms of the statute where the statute is the basis for the claim.
NPS is not looking at whehter a duty is owed becuase a common-law action ad duty has already been established. The statute is evidence that helps define the meaning of reasonable care and establishing breach.
When can an undertaking give rise to a duty in tort? (HINT 42)
Undertakings can be created by contracts and can arise gratuitously
Equally applicable to those who act altruistically and to those who act non-altruistically
Section 42: An actor who undertakes to render services to another and knows or should know that services will reduce risk of physical harm to other has duty of reasonable care if:
The failure to exercise such care increases the risk of harm than before the undertaking
The person to whom services are rendered or another relies on the exercise of reasonable care
When can an undertaking create a duty of reasonable care to a third party? (HINT 43)
Someone who may not have any part in either promising to render service or receive those services but nonetheless harmed as a third party
Section 43: An undertaking can create a duty owed of reasonable care to a third party if:
a. the failure to exercise reasonable care INCREASES the RISK of harm that existed without the undertaking (the failure to use reasonable care made matters worse)
b. the actor has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person (a school hires me to keep the entrance clear for students, I assumed the duty of the school and I would owe the students a duty)
c. the person recieving the services rendered relies on the actor to exercise reasonable care.
What is the main similarity between Section 42 and 43 given the duty in an undertaking?
Both sections make it clear that tort duties are independent of contractual obligations and can be triggered by gratuitous and contractual undertakings (compensated or gratuitous)
If a plaintiff is not in privity with the defendant can the defendants contract have any bearing on the defendants duty to the plaintiff in tort?
If the plaintiff was an intended third party then yes. If the plaintiff was an incidental third party then no.
Intended: The whole purpose of the transaction was to confer a benefit on the third-party
can be a member of “defined, limited and known group of people”
must be tantamount to privity to find a duty
Incidental: The transaction could have also benefited this third party but their benefits was not the purpose (object) of the transaction
What is the difference between nonfeasance and misfeasance?
nonfeasance is the failure to act when there is no duty to act and cannot be the basis of a torts suit
misfeasance if the failure to act when it was under a duty to act and is an actionable tort
What is the focus of contract based scope and how does it effect other liability frameworks?
The focus of contract based scope of duty it to promote effiecient contracting because the courts must be sensitive to policy concerns, particularly the danger of crushing liability. The distributive concerns will trump tort public policy in favor of private contract efficiency. Similar to the “principle and policy” in section 7 that states a court may decide that the ordinary duty of reasonable care requires modification in favor of countervailing principle or policy.
What are the differences among the approaches based on
Privity
Tantamount to privity
Third-party beneficiary doctrine
Reasonable foreseeability ?
Privity(Contract): A third party (a person not directly involved in the contract) cannot sue for damages arising from that contract even if they were negatively affected by its performance or lack of. They are only binding to those explicitly wihtin the contract.
Tantamount to privity: when a person is not explicitlty within the contract but experiences the same effects of those bound to the contract.
Third-Party Beneficiary Doctrine: A legal principle that gives a third party the right to enforce a contract if they are an intended beneficiary
Reasonable Foreseeability: Could the defendant reasonably foresee that the third party would rely on their conduct and thus result in the third party’s harm
What is the scope of a defendant’s obligation to third parties based on Social host liability? (include underage drinking and diff jdx approaches)
Social Hosts are not usually held liable for third parties when they supply them alcohol (including minors)
Some jurisdicitons hold social hosts liable when the host is over 21 and knowingly providing alcohol to underage minors (exception for parents/guardians/spouses/custodians)
Why are social hosts and commercial vendors treated differently?
Social hosts are not usually held liable becuase they have less control over the third party’s consumption of alcohol, less able to absorb/spread losses and they are not expected to limit excessive drinking by community members while these are all within the scope and ability of commercial vendors. (this includes minors)
Why does the law distinguish between adult guests and underage minors? (specific to underage drinking)
The law differentiates between adults and minors regarding alcohol consumption in tort law because minors are considered less mature and incapable of making responsible decisions about alcohol, making them more vulnerable to harm from drinking, and therefore placing a greater legal responsibility on those who provide alcohol to them
what are the criminal and civil approaches to prevent underage drinking?
TX, WA:
* enacted statutes that impose criminal liability
* required mens rea and actus reus
* a misdemeanor which include fines, jail time, community service
* can become felony due to bodily harm
Other Municipalities
* social host ordinances punishing owners who provide alcohol to minors
* civil, not criminal, provisions
* differ across jurisdictions based on age of host, requirements for violation, magnitude of penalties
What is the common law classification of a Trespasser?
People who enter one’s property without privilege, consent, or permission of the property owner. Can occur innocently
What is the common law classification of a Licensee?
People who enter the land with permission from the owner or current occupier
What is the common law classification of an Invitee?
People who enter the land with permission and the entry onto the property serves teh purposes of the landowner or occupier.
What is the common law classification of a Public Invitee?
Those who enter the property in which the purpose is because the land is held open to the general public.